Gun Crime

[loinburger]

MrFun:

If we give citizens the right to own nuclear weapons, this would make citizens more capable of contributing to the nation's defense.

And you accuse me of using strawman arguments?

How would nuking portions of the US help contribute to its defense? "New York was attacked by hostile elements today, but thanks to the quick thinking of many New Yorkers, the city is now a smoking crater."

Wraith:

Is there anyone in particular you're addressing this to?

I hadn't intended the question to be directed at you or Floyd et al. I think that MacTBone was the only one on this thread who said that it's silly for people to be able to own machine guns. Several more posters said this on the other thread.

Why assume that's the actual intent?

This is the (expressed) intent of most posters who are in favor of gun control. I agree that it is doubtful at best that this is the (actual) intent of gun control bills (the Brady Bill being the most glaring example).

[mactbone]

I think it's unnecessary for people to own heavy weaponry.

Look, I just don't understand how people would want all of these things to be legal, because they're the same ones that think it is illegal to restrict access to these same weapons. Can you imagine a mentally unstable person having the power to purchase a WMD?

I'm not for banning the use of all weapons, just weapons whose only purpose is mass destruction. Machine guns cause mass destruction, combat shotguns have obviously only one use - combat.

So, again, why allow a generally unreliable public with these weapons?

[Wraith]

--"Despite what the Justice from South Carolina would have us believe, in fact the meaning of the Constitution is not fixed"

You, perhaps, didn't notice that it was a majority opinion on a case? This carries a lot more weight than your assertion.

--"I hadn't intended the question to be directed at you or Floyd et al."

Ah, okay.

--"So, again, why allow a generally unreliable public with these weapons?"

Because it's no worse than allowing a generally unreliable government to have them.

Again, this is just a property rights issue. The burden is on those who wish to restrict them. And, as has been stated, it's better to fight a military with military-grade weapons...

Wraith
"It's republic if you can keep it"
-- Benjamin Franklin, asked what sort of government the constitutional convention had chosen.

[Urban Ranger]

Some interesting figures for you people to ponder. There are a total of 12 crimes involving guns in the first two months of 2002 in Hong Kong, a city of around 7,000,000 people. So it's about 1.7 per 1,000,000 people, and that's for two months.

To me, that's powerful indication of gun ban is working.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MrFun


Is government property the same as saying that it's private property??

If so, then nuclear weapons are private property, and that means that citizens have the right to own nuclear weapons.

David Floydd, you seem to have had a question about this statement that I made, so I reiterated for you.

What I'm saying is that if government property qualifies as private property, then based on your logic, citizens have the right to own nuclear weapons, bio-chemical weapons, tanks, military aircraft, anti-aircraft artillery, and so forth. This is all private property if government property is equivalent to the definition of private property.

And Loinburger --- ok, let's forget about nuclear weapons falling under the definition of legal firearms.

Citizens should be allowed to have the right to own tanks, military aircraft, and artillery in order to increase their capability to contribute to our nation's defense.

I'm not saying that the NRA or gun-owners advocate such an extreme, but they are ignoring this logic in their rationale for the right to own small firearms.

In today's warfare, citizens armed with pistols or rifles will not be able to defend against a foreign nation's invasion.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MrFun
I'm not saying that the NRA or gun-owners advocate such an extreme, but they are ignoring this logic in their rationale for the right to own small firearms.

In today's warfare, citizens armed with pistols or rifles will not be able to defend against a foreign nation's invasion.

It is beyond the financial means of most citizens to purchase a tank or bomber, or for that matter to purchase a machine gun. Banning small arms but legalizing military grade weapons would therefore make personal defense available only to the rich.

[KrazyHorse]

That's the oddest opinion I've ever heard.

[David Floyd]

What I'm saying is that if government property qualifies as private property, then based on your logic, citizens have the right to own nuclear weapons, bio-chemical weapons, tanks, military aircraft, anti-aircraft artillery, and so forth. This is all private property if government property is equivalent to the definition of private property.

I'm still kinda confused as to why you would ask that - quite obviously what the federal government buys belongs to it, and what I buy belongs to me. I believe that we can both buy tanks, assuming we can both afford them.

[Wraith]

--"Some interesting figures for you people to ponder."

And, of course, there are just obviously no other social or cultural differences that might effect the numbers, right?

BTW, what are the total crime rates, not just those involving guns? Without that info, the most you've got is a rather tautalogical statement that higher gun availability means more guns are used in crimes. This is extremely far from even suggesting causation, must less proving it.

--"What I'm saying is that if government property qualifies as private property,"

Why would government property qualify as private property? By definition it isn't.

--"I'm not saying that the NRA or gun-owners advocate such an extreme"

I do.

--"In today's warfare, citizens armed with pistols or rifles will not be able to defend against a foreign nation's invasion."

Well, the idea behind guerilla warfare is to use the small weapons in, surprise, guerilla tactics (as in ambushes and so forth), and capture heavier enemy weapons for when you need them. There's nothing wrong with small arms in guerilla warfare.

As an example, the Jews in the Ghetto were able to hold of the Waffen SS for quite some time with nothing but pistols and captured weapons. The standoff allowed a lot more people to escape.

Wraith
"I have strong feelings about gun control. If there's a gun around, I want to be controlling it."
-- Clint Eastwood

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
You are mixing up rights (right to property, for example) with entitlements (such as health care and welfare). Rights cannot be given or granted - they just ARE, and all governments can do is choose whether or not to recognize and guarantee these rights, or ignore and violate them.

You are terribly wrong. There is no such thing as so called "natural rights," for these rights we are accustomed to have do not exist in nature. As a matter of fact most of the things we have rights to do not exist in nature, they are human institutions and inventions such as private properties, so how can "natural rights" exist? They don't.

It is not like there is some kind of context-free, idealistic list of rights incribed on a stone tablet that is universally acknowldedged.

Suppose for a moment that bearing firearms is a right. This right could not have existed before the invention of firearms. Therefore, there are no "natural rights," only ones granted to individuals by a society.

[Wraith]

--"There is no such thing as so called "natural rights,""

Not again. Is there any way we can combine these two gun-rights threads?

Look, I don't care what your opinion is, US law was based on the concept of natural rights. US legal arguments cannot assume a social original, like you seem to want.

--"This right could not have existed before the invention of firearms."

UR, why are you being like this? You know this is a fallacious argument. Firearms are just another form of property, and property rights are pretty fundamental.

Wraith
"The Constitution is a written instrument. As such its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now."
-- Justice Brewer ("State of Southern Caroline vs. US" - Majority Opinion)

[MrFun]

Originally posted by loinburger


It is beyond the financial means of most citizens to purchase a tank or bomber, or for that matter to purchase a machine gun. Banning small arms but legalizing military grade weapons would therefore make personal defense available only to the rich.

Nope -- you misunderstood what I meant.

Have ALL weapons available to citizens by virtue of private property. That means we should subsidize tanks, military aircraft, and maybe even nuclear weapons so that even middle class citizens can exercise their right to private property.

This INCLUDES the small firearms now fitting under legal weapons for citizens.

[Wraith]

--"That means we should subsidize"

Since when does "have available" == "subsidize"?

Just because you have a right to own something doesn't mean the government has to buy it for you.

Wraith
"Politics and crime - they're the same thing."
-- ("The Godfather")

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Wraith
--"That means we should subsidize"

Since when does "have available" == "subsidize"?

Just because you have a right to own something doesn't mean the government has to buy it for you.

Wraith
"Politics and crime - they're the same thing."
-- ("The Godfather")

The purpose would be so that there is less of an inequality between the upper class and middle class in exercising their right to bear arms.

There are other programs that help different classes of people to practice rights, such welfare programs and affirmative action.

Subsidizing tanks, military aircraft and artillery for middle class citizens would make sense in this context. Or not??

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Wraith
And, of course, there are just obviously no other social or cultural differences that might effect the numbers, right?

What kind of social or cultural differences are relevant? That Usians are more prone to acts of violence involving guns?

Originally posted by Wraith
BTW, what are the total crime rates, not just those involving guns? Without that info, the most you've got is a rather tautalogical statement that higher gun availability means more guns are used in crimes. This is extremely far from even suggesting causation, must less proving it.

(Identification numbers added by me)



I have never suggested causation in the first place, that's a strawman. It seems to be, with those figures, in comparison to that of the US, a casual relation between availability of guns and the number of violent crimes (per capita). Sure, maybe there are other migitating factors, but we don't know if there are any and social factors are hard to quantity.